Newt Gingrich, who's been on the receiving end of this supposedly "fun" protest, says: "Glitter bombing is clearly an assault and should be treated as such... When someone reaches into a bag and throws something on you, how do you know if it is acid or something that stains permanently or something that can blind you? People have every right to their beliefs but no right to assault others.”

The NYT tries to get a legal opinion by asking First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams:

"I don’t think you’d get much disagreement that like so much else in the law, it’s all a matter of degree... Touching someone’s body can be criminal. But it’s awfully unlikely that there would be a prosecution if it’s just a bit of glitter. But in theory, the more that’s dropped, the more likely is prosecution."

That's a pragmatic assessment from the point of view of police and prosecutors, not an opinion about whether it is a crime. Did Abrams address the point of view of the recipient of the attack (as Gingrich did, above)? If someone rushes at you and makes gestures of attack, but it turns out to be only glitter, you still have the fear, and you (or your bodyguards) don't know what is about to happen. Then maybe it's funny to laugh at the person who felt the fear or overreacted. And there they are covered in glitter. Ha ha.

This is like the childhood game of taking a swat at someone, without hitting him, and then hooting "You flinched!" In that childhood game — is it still played? — if the person flinched, you then have the right to punch him in the arm. Hard. But imagine adults playing with each other that way. Or would life work better? Justice Bradley charges right up to Justice Prosser, gets in his face, with fists flying but not touching him, and he flinches/touches. Well, then Justice Bradley immediately has the right to punch Prosser — hard — in the arm. And that's the end of it. Instead... oh, lord!... the troubles we have in Wisconsin!

(And here's that thread from last month where we talked about pie-throwing and where, in the comments, there was some extensive discussion of glittering.)

I wonder what sort of trouble I'd get in if I charged the stage at an Obama rally and hurled glitter in his face.

I'd imagine I'd do some prison time, if I survived it. The Secret Service would probably shoot me just as I was releasing the glitter.

That's eventually going to happen to one of these nitwits, by the way -- they'll pull this shit on someone with a big enough reputation to have received actual death threats -- someone like Gingrich, or Perry, who would have an armed security detail. Quick double-tap to center mass and they'll become an instant martyr.

Who's to say that these glitter-bombings aren't probing dry runs for an assassination attempt?

Or a softening of defenses in preparation for one? If they launch enough of these, eventually they'll condition security to take someone rushing the stage less seriously, and security will be less likely to use lethal force to prevent someone rushing the stage from reaching the vip.

Maybe anyone who does this should be charged as a co-conspirator should there ever be an assassination on a public figure by someone rushing the stage.

When Ann Coulter was attacked by those pie throwers on that college campus in Arizona, I wrote an email to Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik--the same guy involved in the Loughner case--pointing out that chemicals and contaminants (lye and semen from HIV-infected men) had been showing up in the pies thrown at conservative ministers of Parliament in the UK (providing links), and suggesting that he test those pies thrown at Coulter.He wrote back a few days later saying that it was just college kids and pie. They told him they baked it themselves (exact words).

Now why wouldn't they tell him if they added anything? I'm sure they would turn a simple misdemeanor into a major felony (like attempted murder) if they had added anything.

Glitter thrown in someone's face can cause eye damage. It should be treated as felony assault once this is known.

I was just sitting here reading and the same thought popped in my head, only I was thinking of also popping an Alka Seltzer in my mouth before hand and let the foam come out of my mouth, make gurgling sounds while throwing the Baby powder and yelling Anthrax.

It is assault and the target of the assault should be allowed to protect himself/herself.

That protection means beating the crap out of the person performing the assault, knocking them to the ground, stepping on their shoulder or head or even shooting them before they can reach you (my personal favorite).

You have no idea what sort of mayhem they are about to commit. It could be acid. It could be something dangerous and life threatening. That it turns out to be glitter is immaterial.

If you don't want to be treated like a deranged criminal committing assault, then don't act that way.

It seems glitter could potentially cause serious harm to the eyes, and maybe ears, sinuses, and lungs. On the other hand, "wonderfully fabulous" sounds really gay.

If someone rushes at you and makes gestures of attack, but it turns out to be only glitter, you still have the fear, and you (or your bodyguards) don't know what is about to happen. Then maybe it's funny to laugh at the person who felt the fear or overreacted. And there they are covered in glitter. Ha ha.

Okay, let us be serious for a moment. In Indiana it would be battery at the lowest level and arguably criminal mischief. Battery: knowingly touching another person in a rude, insolent or angry manner. The touching can be indirect, such as by throwing something at someone.

Criminal mischief: knowingly damages or defaces property of another person without consent.

If a person was "glittered" by a person not a personal friend I would expect the glitter tosser to get charged with one or both of these crimes.

Personally, I don't see anything even slightly "fabulous" about the idea.

Answer the question as posed, Freder. Is glitter assault? Not knowing what's going on in the moment it happens, should the target be able to defend themselves?

Using the standards established by Althouse and many of the commenters here, absolutely not. With waterboarding, the victim thinks he is going to drown. If that is an acceptable interrogation technique then the standard for assault should be actual risk of harm, not the perception of the victim.

What if one of these nitwits attacks Rick Perry, who has been known to carry concealed weapons on his person, and provokes a shooting?

Given the glitter attacks I've seen and how quickly and closely they occur, I doubt very seriously any such attack could provoke a shooting by a concealed carrier. It's too close, it's too quick.

Now...if some braindead idiot knows the 20' rule of thumb and wants to try and provoke a shooting (ie, wants to die), they would run at the target from 30 feet or so with a hand tucked into a jacket or coat.

In all likelihood, the target's security would react before he/she did. The target wouldn't be thinking in terms of security as they gladhand or give a speech. The security detail, on the other hand, would be thinking of nothing but.

I think people who have glitter, or anything else, thrown at them should respond with a punch in the nose to the thrower. It's not peaceful but it only hurts some asshole who deserves it And it does get a really important point across in a fun way.

For someone who doesn't think waterboarding is torture, you sure are concerned about whether people are fearful or don't know what is going to happen.

Okay, have it your way. We'll throw glitter on terrorists and see if they talk.

This is what I love about the left. They'll assert (with a staight face) that a terrorist whose intent is to kill as many innocent people as possible is exactly the same as someone with whom they disagree on policy.

This is what I love about the left. They'll assert (with a staight face) that a terrorist whose intent is to kill as many innocent people as possible is exactly the same as someone with whom they disagree on policy.

It's really very simple, whatever you might have in your hand. You get inside someone's security zone, directing your body motion directly at another person, usually arms length or a bit less, you are a threat, you intend to be a threat, and if you get knocked out as a result, you deserve it.

Freder, the "issue" here is whether or not tossing glitter on a stranger is a crime, and further whether or not it might provoke some violence from the target toward the glitter tosser. You want to change the subject to whether or not waterboarding is torture, is a crime, should be punished, etc.... At least once you suggested that if a person thought waterboarding by the government was okay then that person could not complain about "glittering" by a citizen. I want to suggest to you: that line of argument is, please excuse me, truly stupid. It strikes me as similar to the current lefty argument: "You can't be upset about obscene Democrat spending unless you were upset about obscene Republican spending."

Perhaps some things are BAD regardless of what someone thinks about something else? If I ever thought any act of violence was justified am I forbidden to disapprove of any other act of violence?

Unfortunately, the targets have to be careful of how they react, even by reflex. Look at how much mileage the left got out of the attact on Rand Paul - MoveOn lady with a wig on tried to jam a sign through the window of Rand Paul's car. Of course, the left made the meme that this poor innocent lady got stomped on by violent Tea Party thugs, that it was an over reaction. Google "Rand Paul attack" and see what the top results are. Here's one from Huffington Post: Rand Paul Supporter Stomps on MoveOn Member's Head

Someone needs to inventory this kind of stuff - I suspect that will be a continuing tactic of the left - do a threating move that will cause a reflexive action, before the victim has time to think about the reaction. Pretty much what happened to Prosser too, except his was complicated by the fact that it was a woman who initiated the move.

Come to think of it, we have 3 situations that involved women. They must be emulating the Taliban or something.

Sorry, but if you really fail to see any humor on the right these days, you are living in a bubble.

They just aren't in a humorous mood about physical attacks, given the atmosphere. We really are in a pre-civil war attitude as a country. It's not funny when people attack eachother. There's plenty of room for humor, but not here.

Anyone attacking a democrat or a republican in the slightest physical or threatening way is to be considered a complete asshole by all right-thinking people.

"I want to see a bodyguard body-slam the next person who tries to do this."

There was an incident involving Rand Paul where this more-or-less occurred. Caused a moderate amount of indignation on the left. Apparently security personnel are supposed to wait and ascertain the exact outcome of someone charging the person they are guarding. I'm pretty sure I live in a state with a "stand your ground" law. I intend to take full advantage of it whenever necessary.

"There was an incident involving Rand Paul where this more-or-less occurred. Caused a moderate amount of indignation on the left. "

Good memory.

Apparently they want to be able to attack conservatives, and if there is any reaction that's the real thuggery.

I don't understand this. It's like they are acknowledging their moral inferiority. It's similar to Alinsky's rules. It's like they are admitting they are losers, and it's easy to see, long term, it won't work very well. Yet how brilliant they act like this all is.

Freder F: Let me put this into perspective for you. We do not give a shit about waterboarding. Waterboarding was an excellent way to torture, that is torture, people into revealing information we might be interested in. Or not. But we waterboarded because we could. And in all likelihood we continue to do so in foreign lands. waterboard that is. If you think it is such a crime against nature why don't you go throw glitter in GWB's face and put a citizen's arrest on him? OK? Waterboarding was, and is, torture. Plus it is fun to administer.

Here in the Commonwealth of Virginia, a self-defense defense to a murder charge requires the actor to reasonably fear death or serious bodily injury. Whether the risk actually was present is not relevant; it's the actor's reasonable belief.

(Same standard applies to defending another person.)

Assume a bodyguard shoots and kills someone rushing towards a candidate with an unknown substance in his or her hand.

Interesting question whether knowledge by, for example, a bodyguard, that candidates are being attacked by thrown glitter (which does not run the risk of serious bodily injury) makes claiming self defense considerably more difficult in this case.

Oh, Advocate. Still stuck in the nineties, when masculine gays were too far in the closet to call bullshit on this stupid "wonderfully fabulous" hyper-feminine glitter-riddled shtick. Not anymore. The face of modern gayness is no longer glitter, Garland, cross dressing, feminine pronouns, and argyle sweaters. We've been normalized. We're here, we're mediocre, get used to it.

This is the kind of sociopathic behavior that's now rampant on the Left. They have dehumanized the opposition in every possible way, such that it doesn't even occur to them that these kinds of assaults are just sick. Whether it's pies or glitter, the message is clear: Fuck you. I won't even bother to talk or debate because I already know you're evil.

"Prosser's queer as a three dollar bill, as any punk who beats women is."

A whole lot of hidden meaning in this little rant, 'eh?

You hate gays, and have a weird test for gayness, and think it's OK to lie about people you think are gay.

My guess is that you're gay/self-hating and can't handle it without bashing folks. Radical lefties usually do have something really bizarre going on upstairs.

Prosser won, btw. He'll stay in office for another decade and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. He has power. He'll be on the bench long after Bradley is off of it. She knows it, and that's why she got so violent and nasty.

If throwing glitter in someone's face does not rise to the level of criminal assault, then is it also OK to throw sand in someone's face? Stret dirt? Can I fill a water pistol with lemon juice or Clorox or some other "harmless" household food or cleaning substance and shoot it at you?

My guess is that those who do this choose their victims very carefully. Because they know that if the victim responds with a strong sucker-punch, no jury is likely to convict the thrower of the sucker punch.

Because, really, we all know that the only time you have a right to throw something at a stranger is in self-defense.

Yes, and as an infantry HHC commander, I also operated by Rule 81. And as a tank company platoon leader and XO, I operated by Rule 762, Rule 50, rule 105, and when we got the M1A1s, Rule 120. And like Rule 223 and 556, they were very effective. But they didn't have a Robert Shaw line from a movie adaptation of a play. So I opted for RULE THREE OH THREE!!!!1!!!11!!!!!

At Common Law, glittering is by definition ASSAULT, i.e., both a crime and a tort, as Justice Bradley will find out when she is eventually charged with assault on fellow Justice Prosser:

"Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.

"The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a RAISED FIST [emph. added] might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim."

If somebody threw metallic glitter in my face, especially at a public event, I would feel perfectly justified in first kicking their *** up one side of the street and down the other, and then I would press charges, and then sue the snot out of them. Nobody has the right to put my God-given eyesight in danger for a mere political disagreement.

Some things are just beyond the pale. Somebody has to take a stand, and any of us may be that somebody. If we don't, we will only embolden the barbarians at the gate.

(And if you must use tar and feathers, make sure it's the brushable at room temperature kind, and keep it away from the face. And make sure the rail doesn't have splinters.)

I guess the perfect scenario would be if one of these glitter bandits ran up to make their pathetic, useless little clown-like gesture, and somebody clothes-lined them right in the face with a cream pie.

The difference in flinch and throwing glitter at someone is that you play flinch with friends. If someone approached me asa stranger and tried to get me to flinch and I did, he wouldn't be entitled to punch me in the arm. Rather I would have punched him in his face as hard as I could.Flinch, and Purple purple are fun games to play with buddies, but with strangers not so much.

Feeder wrote:Using the standards established by Althouse and many of the commenters here, absolutely not. With waterboarding, the victim thinks he is going to drown. If that is an acceptable interrogation technique then the standard for assault should be actual risk of harm, not the perception of the victim.

are you aware of the distinction between someone you are trying to interrogate, and the guy or celebrity you throw a pie at? Even if you simply use the army field manual and forgo any enhanced interogations, there is still some degree of coercion and subterfuge and discomfort that an interrogator will put a detainee through, that you would not if you were to meet that same person in polite company.Are pie throwers throwing those pies to get life saving info? If so, and if you could show that throwing those pies would save lives, then more power to pie throwing as an interrogation technique. Only this pie throwing and glitter bobbing is done, not to get information, but simply to embarrass/terrorize. Are you so stupid to not recognize the distinction?

Freder wrote:Show me where there is any U.S. law or treaty we are party to that allows us to assault anyone, whether or not they may be suspected of terrorism.

I take it you've never heard of SERE training, where the us has routinely assaulted (in your words) cadets and made them go through such torture simply to graduate. And this has been going on for decades!Even prior to Bush!